Canadian court ruling orders Google to block sites worldwide
theglobeandmail.com
theglobeandmail.com
The plaintiff, Equustek Solutions Inc., says the main defendant, Morgan Jack, sells networking devices that infringe on their trademark.
The defendant sells these things online; the plaintiff wants his websites to be dereferenced from Google.
The court agreed and asked Google to remove the links on all its properties worldwide (not just google.ca).
But what does Google have to do with this?
Why does the plaintiff not go after the infringer, to shut his websites down and/or fine him and/or get him in prison?
Telling Google to remove the links (worldwide!!) is like issuing an injunction against all restaurants the world over to stop selling food to anyone called "Morgan Jack" in the remote chance it will have an effect on his business.
I am not convinced by that line of thoughts, though.
> Telling Google to remove the links (worldwide!!) is like issuing an injunction against all restaurants the world over to stop selling food to anyone called "Morgan Jack" in the remote chance it will have an effect on his business.
But Google would be the only restaurant on the whole planet in that analogy.
I understand the point about forcing Google to stop sellin advertising to this person. I am confused about how a disappeared person continues to pay for services from Google; why didn't anyone get a court order to force Google to release information about the infringer?
{edit: i did not downvote parent. I am not sure why parent has been downvoted}
I hadn't heard about this before today and doing a bit of research it sounds like something that has been going on for years - since at least 2007 - and there has been some really dodgy practice. (But I still don't see why Google is targeted here).
http://www.rudy2.com/datalink-equustek/
And it seems that Datalink have made some effort to clarify the situation: http://1770-kf3.com/
> We would like to clarify that DataLink no longer sell/promote the following Canadian manufacturer’s products. “Equustek Solutions Inc.’s products (www.equustek.com), as listed below, are no longer distributed by Datalink:”
DL2000 DL3500 DL4000 DL4500 DL6000 DL7000 EQ7000 DL-PC DL-PCI DL-PCIe DL-PC/104 DL-STED EQ-DCM
“Customers of these products should contact Equustek directly at the website above or toll free at 1-888-387-3787"
I don't know this area so I have no idea what I need to type into a search box to get a Datalink result turning up where I should be getting an Equustek result. (And I'm trying across different search engines).
Google is in the ad business in the same way a newspaper or a magazine is: Selling ads is the major source of income. Every time someone says that Google is an ad business, for calibration remind yourself that so is the New York Times.
Anyway, Google linking (in the regular results section, not ads) to the website of a given business is similar to a newspaper or magazine stating in editorial content that a certain business exists and what its address is. That is obviously not "selling ads" in any way, shape or form.
(Probably one very angry judge, but I wonder...)
"Contempt of Court includes the following behaviours:
- Fails to maintain a respectful attitude, remain silent or refrain from showing approval or disapproval of the proceeding
- Refuses or neglects to obey a subpoena
- Willfully disobeys a process or order of the Court
- Interfere with the orderly administration of justice or to impair the authority or dignity of the Court"
Companies like Apple, Google, Facebook and other global IT companies are at an advantage here because they can always pack up and move but if they start pissing off the legal system in the larger economies it may very well backfire.
For 'brick and mortar' companies such tricks are a lot harder to pull off. Also, to protect against mutual damage governments can enter into collectives which have a lot more power against multi-nationals than any single country.
If a judge orders you 'x', you can appeal but in the meantime it is usually wise do 'x', unless you've very carefully weighed the risks and any fall-out and you decide to make a stand.
It's quite possible this is a case worth doing that for.
Further, the Judge themselves is in charge of deciding whether Contempt of Court has occurred.
No possible jury to convince or appeal to, just the judge.
They can have you imprisoned in under a day.
Contempt of Court is very serious.
Only if you're in their jurisdiction. And Google isn't a person to jail. And corporations have a way of making these things not attributable to any one person.
However, it would be better to state the argument given by the law professor in the article: "what happens if a Russian court orders Google to remove gay and lesbian sites from its database". Find something that the judge cares about personally, and you'll find a country that opposes it. Google can also complain that it's being targetted - why not Bing? Yahoo? Any other search providers? Does Wikipedia have a page for the company? What about reseller companies, that resell the competitor - not only are they facilitators, they're witting facilitators? What about sites with user reviews? At what point do we draw the moral line about shooting the messenger?
And Google isn't a person to jail.
And corporations have a way of making these things not
attributable to any one person.
Good point! :)
Jail == cannot conduct business for X years?
This looks like an example of @ziobrando's "Bullshit asymmetry principle" in action. You whip out some bullshit (unless I'm really misunderstanding what you are saying) in a one liner with no citations, but to refute it, someone would have to talk about the history of corporations, legal theories around them, compare and contrast with societies that never developed a similar idea (an interesting take on things: http://www.amazon.com/Long-Divergence-Islamic-Held-Middle-eb... ), and so on and so forth. That's a lot more effort than simply spouting some snark.
There's still a corollary in need of succinct definition/labeling: in context of a casual discussion, you make a fair point in a one liner with no citation, then someone criticizes it (in effect) for lacking peer-reviewed encyclopedic depth & thoroughness. (Ex.: "this car does 0 to 60MPH in 10 seconds" "uh, NO, you're not taking relativity into account! and you didn't cite any certified testing labs!" and from social context you feel compelled to elaborate on why your comment was sufficient, while the other loudly labels you a liar, ignores your objections, and marches off to disrupt other sane conversations.)
It does suggest I need to clarify that I believe that it is both the great strength and the great weakness of corporations.
I do remember making a very explicit 'note to self': Do not under any circumstances piss off a judge during a court session.
Feel free to ignore that, if you do please do blog about it.
If 5% of the clicks actually like the new search engine, then Google would have lost 5% of it's clients in a day.
"It is clear from the record that Google was never named as a party to the suit, was never served with process, never waived or accepted process, and never made an appearance in the suit before the expunction order was entered. Nothing in the record establishes that Google stands in privity to the commission or to Jackson. Accordingly, we hold that Google was not a party to the suit and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter orders against Google." [1]
[1] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140609/07402727525/texas...
Now, the ruling requires google to block them, even if they change the url. That's the new upgrade that required the ruling.
I'd say at the end of the day it's a matter of degree. In both situations, a content provider has been deemed illegal is leveraging Google to stay afloat. But while in one case Google's obligation seems like a no-brainer due to its heinous nature, the other elicits less passion.
Russia can ban all LBGT sites on Google because it has been deemed illegal.
And notably, I'm not even arguing that Google should ever be ordered to block sites worldwide. The GP's argument has NOTHING to do with the worldwide nature, on the contrary, that it is worldwide was only parenthetical in the comment. The same argument would stand even if the decision only affected Canada. It argues against involving Google at all, and that's what I'm debating.
It might be an unpopular opinion here, but I believe the rise of a global network will inevitably force the rise of a global government. A higher authority is now necessary to sort out this sort of problems in a consistent way. It's the natural evolution we've seen in the past when trade and knowledge networks reached a dimension where differences in legislation made it too difficult for them to flow. The question is: how do we define this global government? Which interests will it represent in practice? I think it's something we should embrace, because otherwise we will be forced to accept it at the point of a non-metaphorical gun.
There's a number of jurisdictions where that is not strictly true. Including the US (US citizens are subject to US tax law regardless where they live), and a number of European countries.
As a web-based business owner, I find the prospect of having to comply with an increasing list of obscure regulations from various different entities rather overwhelming. Something comprehensive could be a relief, if it's done right. (Of course, there will still be differences between countries, but perhaps an overarching treaty could at least limit their impact.)
Yeah, I know -- Hidden Services need some work. As I understand, the problem is solvable, it just needs a few more heads thinking about it to get solved.
I don't know the circumstances of the case, but it seems plausible that given an opportunity a German, Emirati, Chinese or Brazilian court may reach a different conclusion as to the legality of Morgan Jack's business. Countries are known to have very different labor and copyright laws. It's plausible that some circumstances (e.g. mistreatment, authorship, limitations on copyright transferability, nuances and even legality of the contract the parties had entered) could make courts elsewhere consider Morgan Jack to be the rightful owner of the design.
What if such a court elsewhere made a contradictory ruling and also demanded from Google that it be enforced worldwide?
This is made easier by the fact that your company is usually represented by separate local legal entities whose business is within each jurisdiction.
The bottom line is this: your jurisdiction extends as far as your control. A court may be able to issue injunctions against the systems which are located on its jurisdiction which may only be a subset of systems supporting a given site. In places where it is legal, it may also censor the internet. If everything from hosting, through advertising, payments and readership are outside the jurisdiction then it can do nothing directly and must resort to seeking assistance from foreign jurisdictions. I'd say in those situations it is entirely appropriate.
The US claims jurisdiction over US citizens worldwide for certain tax matters, for example.
And Norway has laws intended to let Norwegian courts pursue residents that travel abroad to take advantage of legal systems that are bad at pursuing sex crimes against children even though the crime takes part outside Norwegian borders.
Many countries have laws for which the courts jurisdiction is either worldwide, or substantially different from the national borders.
It's very hard to argue consistently that the one is ok and the other is not. I strongly believe any kind of interference is bad. If you have beef with someone sue them, don't involve the facilitator.
As a I would like to see all countries in which Google has an office claim their nation's full tax rate on Google's worldwide revenue. All rates combined I think it might be possible for Google to owe ten dollars in taxes per dollars of revenue.
Maybe it's time for an international treaty on Internet regulation to spell out exactly what powers any given nation has. (Although such a thing would probably have the potential to go very wrong.)
Of course, most internet companies do do some business in the US.
As others have commented, I suspect something like the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea that replaced a previous court dating from the League of Nations times, may arise.
Meanwhile, the legal profession in Canada will experience a welcome increase in civil law work and fees!
There is no technical answer to this sort of problems.
By the time every court in the world is done removing all the stuff they want the only thing left will be cats.
There won't be any porn though that is too controversial.
Defendant: http://www.gw1000.com/
It would be cheaper for Google to offer specialist SEO and web design help for these aggrieved parties - "here's how you get your story out and ranked higher than the attack sites" - than to fight legal cases through the courts. Although I am pleased thay're taking the cases to court to defend their position.
No they weren't. In fact, the decision linked at the top of the thread specifically refers to Google and Google Canada as "non-parties".
So the rest of the comment stands, but you are correct that they were not a defendant.
http://www.marketingprofs.com/chirp/2014/25293/how-canadas-a...
But CASL includes making confirmation, welcome and update emails opt-in, or else risking an up to $10 million dollar fine.
Yes, really.
Even if you're not a Canadian business, this will apply to you if you email Canadians.
Yes, really.
Say goodbye to your opt-out email drip courses.
Seems like update emails might too, depending on the circumstances.
The problem is not this case per se. The problem Google faces is the precedent. If this goes through, every one who thinks that there is an irregularity about a website will go to court in order to bring it down from google.
If many websites stop being listed on Google, people might start looking for new search engines and... You can imagine how the story goes from there...
now what?
Sorry Canada, I like you guys, but you don't really get to make rulings for everybody else.